Me, the anti-Asian stereotype.

I'm so disgusted with myself. Here I am, sitting in front of my computer as I do for hours a day, my droopy eyes glued to the screen. My $1000+ a month apartment, which my parents are paying for because I'm too unmotivated to find a job, is a pigsty, with wrappers and dishes strewn about.

I just came back from a place where I blew another ~$200 of my parents' money, wondering whether someone like me is really cut out for becoming a working professional who has to have the motivation to wake up early in the morning and go to work at the same time every weekday. My parents keep comparing me to my friends, asking me to be more like them (i.e. earning their own money, working at decent jobs). As irritating as it is when they do that, I secretly agree--no one my age should be like this. It's shameful, especially in a country that respects individuality and self-sufficiency. I should be a laughingstock.

Any other person would have lit a fire under his or her rear end a long time ago in order to find a job, earn a living, and live independently. I admire my successful friends with enviable work ethic, listen to my parents nag about jobs and exercise, daydream about finally having my own money to waste however I wish, and remind myself that I still do want to achieve my dream...and yet, I just can't find the motivation.

Before I left, they packed my books and the multiple stacks of printouts. I was pumped. I was ready to conquer this beast. My parents printed out five copies of all the questions in the book, telling me to do them all. Telling me that they believed in me. I thought: "I'm not going to fail this time. I don't fail twice." I had everything at my disposal--plenty of time, materials, and youthful energy. I had a good month or so, so I figured I had time.

As it turns out, this was the worst thing I could have done. The month dwindled to a mere two weeks, then one week, then five days. On the very last day, I finally lit my butt on fire, so to speak. Foregone conclusion--it's too little, too late. I walked into that room, sat in front of that computer, and realized that nothing stuck. The words might as well have been in Hindi.

When they realize that I failed (don't doubt it) despite having everything I needed, they'll be disappointed, to say the least. Again, they'll wonder where they went wrong. Again, they'll follow me to my room to confront me and ask me what exactly is going on in my head. They'll ask me if I need one of them to come back and watch over me to make sure I'm doing what I should be doing. I'll say no, like I always do. Like it always does, my regret will subside in a few days' time. I'll probably end up recycling each stack of printouts, too cowardly to face something that will bring out feelings of shame.

Cards, the playing in politics of

When Palin was running for VP, the right accused the left of playing the gender card when we criticized her frightening lack of knowledge or experience. They played the gender card on then-Senator Clinton mere months before when she was fighting for the Democratic nomination. They also did this every single time she ran for an office or her husband ran for an office, because they believe that a woman should be at home taking care of the kids, not going out being ambitious or pursuing a career.

They accuse the left of playing the race card against Herman Cain (apparently we're "attacking" him because we're "afraid" of a "strong black conservative"), but we know all too well how they used and are still using the race card against President Obama. Herman Cain does not have the knowledge, the intellectual curiosity, or the gravitas to become the leader of the free world. Black Americans who support Obama are somehow "brainwashed" into supporting his "liberal agenda", whereas black-Americans who support the Republicans are self-sufficient and independent in their thinking.

Toss the damn cards.

Drunk drivers are some of the most loathsome people on the planet. It's too bad that there will always be alcoholic drinks (because banning them has proven impossible) and irresponsible asshats, and that no number of dead innocents killed by drunk driving will ever be high enough to put a stop to shitbags thinking that freedom includes the right to do whatever they want, other people's lives be damned.

The father of one of my middle school classmates, who lost his brother in a drunk driving crash the night after his high school graduation in 2000, pleaded and pleaded with students in a speech to my middle school to not drive drunk and kill someone else's son and brother. I wonder how many students actually cared about this grieving father's speech that day, and didn't think that this man was just another parent who wants to spoil their fun.

Speaking of fun, is prison fun? Is forever bearing the guilt of knowing that you killed someone's family member or friend because of your own irresponsibility and carelessness fun? Is one fun night out drinking always worth it in the end, even if someone pays for it with his or her life?

A message to teen girls all across America.

Don't get raped, especially by your school's star athlete. He will get a slap in the wrist and whine about going to a trial while you will be slapped in the face by your school's administrators, your school district, and the courts for exercising your first amendment right of freedom of speech by not cheering for your rapist rather than being the weak, submissive woman they expect you to be.

1. Celebrity couple (X & Y) goes on a romantic date in a hip cafe.
   
2. Paparazzo A, hiding behind some bushes across the street from said cafe, takes photos of a brief moment when Y is smiling while speaking to a waitress and X is grimacing while digging through her bag.
3. Paparazzo A sells photos to trashy tabloid rag A for $$$$$.
4. Tabloid A publishes photos under headline "X to Y: IT'S OVER! X is enraged over Y talking to a hot waitress during their date, and threatens to move out and take the dogs with her"
5. Tabloids B and C splash old photos of X & Y making angry faces (presumably from noticing a paparazzo rather than being angry at each other) all over their covers, and use similar headlines to Tabloid A.
6. X & Y separate because of distress from hearing break-up rumors.
7. One week later, Paparazzo A takes pictures of X walking her dogs post-separation, looking tired and not perfectly put-together.
   
8. Around the same time, Paparazzo B takes pictures of Y smiling while speaking with his young female cousin at a family barbecue.
   
9. Paparazzi A and B sell pictures to Tabloid A for $$$$$
   
10. Tabloid A publishes photos under the headline "X: HE BROKE MY HEART! X crying during a lonely stroll one week after shocking break-up with Y. Y speaks with young girl: he's a cradle robber, too!"
11. Y publicly rebukes and threatens to sue Tabloid A for defamation. He later brings a lawsuit.
    
12. Cash-strapped "friend" of Y releases photos of Y shirtless and drunk at a frat party in college to Tabloid A, which gives this "friend" $$$$$ in return.
13. Other celebrities lambaste Y for "poor choices" on Twitter and Facebook.
14. Y refuses to issue apology, saying that those photos should have remained private, and publicly rebukes his "friend".
15. X does not issue any statements, despite being coerced by reporters.
    
16. Tabloids A, B, C, online magazines 1 and 2, blogs 1 to n, and "reputable" news sources I-V publish stories and opinion columns bashing Y for being an insolent liar, pervert, and cheater and proclaiming X to be a victim.
    
17. Y is forced to issue an apology to X, and he finally does.
    
18. X does not respond immediately, leading "news" sources to bash HER for being indecisive and secretive. Tabloids coin a nickname for her to mock her indecisiveness: "Waity X-ie". Why can't she act the victim like she should?
    
19. "News" sources claim Y's apology is insincere and attack him again. This man can't be trusted to tell the truth!
    
20. X finally responds, saying that she remains friends with Y, does not believe in these rumors of infidelity, and wishes to reunite with him after a period of time. She also asks for the paps to leave her and Y alone.
    
21. "News" sources bash X for not being an "empowered" woman. Is she stupid or what?
    
22. Paps leave X alone, and she is not photographed out and about for weeks. They ignore her plea for them to ignore Y.
    
23. Tabloids A-C claim that she's a lazy bum who is moping around because she just doesn't know what to do with her life after the break-up. They make up a new nickname: "Lazy X-y". She's a typical clingy chick who can't go on without her man!
24. Y wins defamation suit against Tabloid A for an undisclosed amount.
25. "News" sources scream injustice at the ruling, claiming that the judge is a fraud who let a known pedophile go free because this wealthy celebrity bribed him.

and so on.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH BEING "BORING"?

Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck are boring because they have a normal family life, try not to do anything controversial, and don't try to attract attention to themselves.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are boring for about the same reasons, and also because they don't like displaying their affection for each other in public.

I really don't see what's so wrong with being boring, and why it's so imperative to some people that celebrities be complete train wrecks like Charlie Sheen.

Can't we all just be relieved that there are still strong, steady relationships based on love, affection, and trust in these crazy times?

I'd take long, "boring" marriages over short, "interesting" ones any day.

Minorities within minorities.

I'm a PC person. Make of it what you will.
I'm a Sims 3 fan. Make of it what you will.
I'm a woman. Make of it what you will.
I'm Chinese. Make of it what you will.
I'm an environmentalist. Make of it what you will.
I'm a Democrat. Make of it what you will.
I'm a progressive. Make of it what you will.
I'm an atheist. Make of it what you will.
I'm a dreamer. Make of it what you will.
I'm overweight. Make of it what you will.

Patronized. Ridiculed. Scorned. Threatened. Shunned. Oppressed. Ignored.

Put down for being proud...outspoken...wanting fair and equal treatment...or even existing.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

The Grammys: a celebration of lamestream music.
Lamestream: so mainstream, it's lame. (no h/t to Sarah Palin, because I'm no fan of hers)

A lot of people like it, so it's good, right?

Listen to an indie album--it'll do you good, even though you'll be an outcast.

I am (or, I used to be, as you'll see in a bit) a lurker at Daily Kos. There was one member who posted positive Obama diaries on a regular basis, because she felt that the site was becoming overtly hostile to the President. Recently, she was so fed up with the nasty atmosphere of the site, that she quit posting to it altogether to start her own blog, in which she intends to post more such positive diaries about the President. A friend of hers on Daily Kos posted a diary announcing the creation of the blog, and its intended purpose. The comments section of that diary made me so disgusted, I could spit. Many of the members made derisive and scornful comments against the diarist, the member who left the site, all former members who left the site out due to increasing hostility toward the President, etc.

People like her--who share her mindset--are being shut out of the conversation, in DK and in other sites like it, because they dare to focus on the President's accomplishments rather than his failures. Obama's critics on the left love to screech about how he failed to include a public option in the healthcare bill, how he hasn't yet repealed DADT and DOMA, how the financial regulation legislation is a joke, how he's going to cave to the Republicans on the Bush tax cuts, extending the deadline for ceasing combat in Afghanistan, etc. Someone mentions all the promises he has kept, and the immediate positive impact of his first two most significant achievements, and that person is called an "Obamabot", or worse. The critics righteously proclaim that Obama ought to be primaried in 2012, or that he should resign, a la Nixon; those of us who recognize that the loss of the White House in 2012 would be an unmitigated disaster for the country, can hardly make an argument for keeping him without confronting a barrage of spiteful comments.

The critics have made it clear that no healthcare bill would have been better than the one that got passed...I'm sure that the people who benefited from it would argue that they wouldn't have been able to wait another 10 or 20 years for another attempt at passing better healthcare legislation.

These people so drawn in by his promises of change, that they failed to realize that history has proven that systemic changes almost never happen overnight, nevermind without any flaws? Why did they raise their hopes so high, even while knowing that those same hopes would come crashing down upon hitting the ceiling known as "reality"?

Us pragmatic (when did this get a bad connotation?) progressives, who have the same ideals as other progressives but believe in a different approach to achieving them, don't get any respect. We're "spineless", "cowards", "sellouts", "centrists", etc. Since when did trying to get things done a step at a time become the tactic of cowards? In that same logic, babies ought to be born able to solve Fermat's Last Theorem and run marathons in four hours. An analogy I like to use is that Obama was expected to erect a 120-story skyscraper in six months, and the progressive purity police (PPP) were so disappointed when he was only able to finish the six-story basement carpark, that they want to fire him and hire another contractor--because, y'know, if it's possible, then...why can't you do it NOW? AND with no mistakes?

This demand for ideological purity from elected officials is what's causing an enormous rift among the Republican Party right now. Teabaggers demand that their candidates run on a platform of anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-gun control, anti-"taxation without representation", anti-separation-of-church-and-state, anti-immigration, anti-government-on-their-backs, anti-everything-Obama, etc. Many moderate Republican candidates lost in primaries because the teabaggers were on a mission of purification. And the critics of Obama on the left want to primary him, supposedly on principle...the Republicans are licking their chops at the prospect of a civil war on the left, just as we have been watching with glee as the GOP fights the Tea Party.

SEGO: The meaning of life in 2200 words or less

SEGO: The meaning of life in 2200 words or less

Posted using ShareThis

Miserable fools.

Some of Obama's most vehement critics are from the left. Deeply mistrusting and cynical from decades of observing American politics, they are always inclined to assume the worst intentions from Obama's actions and words. Even if, under his watch, health care reform has gone further than ever before in history, those critics will simply say that he should have done more and put the needs of the American public by the wayside from the very beginning. Why do those miserable fools still observe politics if they expect that no good will come from it? More importantly, why do they seek to make the optimists miserable like they are?

What's so different between those on the extreme ends of the political spectrum? Not much. These left-wing critics are no better than the radical right-wing critics of Republican politicians. The latter may consider a Republican, who is already considered to be a conservative by the mainstream public, to not be conservative enough. The recent election in NY's 23rd congressional district is a prime example of how the right fringe showed its displeasure at the nomination of a moderate candidate: it nominated its own candidate because it didn't consider the GOP candidate to be "conservative enough".

By the way, they lost that election. Consider what would happen if these threats by purist Democrats to primary Blue Dogs and even President Obama himself were to come to fruition in 2010 and 2012. The media and the GOP would have a field day with the "Democratic Party is fractured" meme, and the GOP would almost certainly benefit electorally. Republicans could win back both the House and the Senate, and possibly even the White House, if the Democrats are disorganized and fighting amongst themselves. They'd create an even greater mess for the next Democratic president to clean up, and inevitably, his critics from his own party will claim he's not doing everything exactly to their liking.

The Democratic Party's inclusive, "big tent" philosophy naturally results in a base that is diverse in age, skin color, background, and experiences; it's a double-edged sword, and Democrats will always be somewhat handicapped by their diversity. The Party leadership must place great emphasis on the "common, shared human experiences" theme, because now the conservatives and the progressives are feeling absolutely no love for one another. Obama, naturally, is in the crossfire, receiving blows from both sides.

He is treated like a child in a family with two highly-demanding parents; I've been around families like this, especially within the Chinese community. You know how those families are. The parents force their children to practice their musical instruments for hours a day, and expect them to excel in academics. Straight-A report cards and top scores on standardized tests are not even cause for praise. Oh no, they must go above and beyond--win all the science and math fairs, skip grades, gain entrance into the most prestigious colleges in the nation (with full scholarships, no less). Obama's stuck in the same rut--he can't please his base, no matter how hard he tries. His critics say that all his accomplishments so far (and there are quite a few) are par for the course, and that any Democratic president would have achieved them; they claim he hasn't lived up to his slogan of "change we need". Never mind that he's ten months into his first term, and that his major promises are also the ones that take the longest to achieve.

Granted, most of these parents are products of their upbringings and environments; in China, for example, the competition is extremely fierce among secondary school students, because China has too many students and too little space in colleges and universities. The parents, if they were immigrants, had probably come to America in search for a better life, and want their children to be better. I'm going to go ahead and say that most of Obama's critics simply wish for him to live up to his promises and bring about real change so that all present and future Americans may benefit, just like those parents wish for their children to have better lives than they had. As for some of them, though, I can't help but think that they are either so cynical and jaded that they expect no less than for him to betray his party, or that they have never liked or trusted him for some reason.

All politicians make promises during their campaigns; how quickly they can fulfill them is difficult for them or anyone else to predict. If they had told the truth and said that they can't promise they will give everyone's pet issue their full attention in their first year in office, would anyone vote for them? My argument is that we should believe those promises, but not expect our politicians to act on all of them immediately, and not expect them to have our number-one issues as their top priorities right away. Some people set themselves up to be extremely disappointed, but why do that when we know better? I swear they are like parents who are so cynical that they expect their teenage children to do drugs, imbibe alcohol, and hang out with the bad crowd even if none of them are actually involved in those activities. Add to that the parents' not believing their children even when they are telling the truth. It's sad that it had to come to this.

What bothers me the most is that the latter tend to like to spread their misery around. They go to Obama photodiaries or other positive Obama diaries and post comments that are intended to disrupt the stream of mostly positive responses and chastise the other commenters for being naive, stupid idol-worshippers who were blind to all his (supposedly) true loyalties and allegiances that they (think they) know him to have. Like they are in his inner circle, or could tap into his thought processes and discover his true intentions.

He ought to be criticized when necessary, but some of his critics are truly taking it too far and attacking his character, assuming the worst intentions, and bullying those who still support him. Do they really think they are helping the cause by attacking the President this way? Do they really think primarying him is a good, noble action against a supposedly corrupt politician? Do they really expect him to fulfill all his promises at an inhuman pace, circumventing the obstacles of the media, his opponents, and all the delays in the legislative process? Who is really naive here?

One long, winding rant

In a forum that I frequently read, the discussion of the bloody murder of a model by her wealthy husband quickly disintegrated into a cruel mockery of her "blonde bimbo" image. To them, she was the epitome of a vapid, naive young woman who used artificially-enhanced looks to gain the affections of wealthy men. Their mockery of her reminds me of the public's and the media's treatment of Anna Nicole Smith, who also died tragically, with the aid of others who were supposed to be helping her. What they forget is that these two women, and others like them, were human beings both before and after their transformations who became caricatures of themselves in order to gain the attention of others. I guess, in a sense, they deserved the treatment...but even after their deaths? It's beyond tasteless--it's cruel.

What also disturbs me is that one member of the forum made a post using Chelsea Clinton as a euphemism for "ugly". Unsurprisingly, another forum member--who has made previous posts which suggest that he is a social conservative--thanked the first member's post for being "useful" (which is the forum's way of letting members show their appreciation for an informative post. Unsurprisingly, it's used often to indicate an agreement with the poster's sentiments, rather than the quality of their posts). Now, when the name of a former president's child is evoked as a substitute for the word "ugly", you know the quality of the discussion has deteriorated beyond recovery. The latest posts in that thread have little to do with the murder itself, which was its topic; it's turned into personal attacks and weak attempts to guide the discussion back to the original topic.

I have learned indirectly that Chelsea Clinton was once called the family dog by a nationally-recognized conservative Republican, whose similarly-minded audience at the time thought the comment was absolutely hysterical(-ly funny). Their ilk also called Hillary Clinton names that should make any woman righteously furious, simply because she did not fit their mold of the ideal woman (subservient and unambitious. A woman's dangerous when she's ambitious, doncha know.). In one of the more stunning demonstrations of their underhanded tactic of using personal attacks when they have nothing substantive or relevant to bring to the discussion, they attacked CHILDREN for being liars when they dared to support a Democratic candidate or a Democratic platform. The best (worst?) example of all is their calling President Obama's oldest daughter some of the same names they had used on Hillary Clinton simply because the 11-year-old dared to wear a shirt with a peace sign on it and to walk out in Europe with her hair unkempt (or so they thought). Little thought was actually given to the purpose of the Obama family's being in Europe in the first place...it was all about Malia's shirt and hair (and her skin color, but the name-callers claim they are not racists.).

Yet, when members of my party pointed out the misdeeds of the Bush twins or former AK Governor Palin's exploitation of her children to score political points, we become the target of "outrage" from conservative Republicans. How dare we criticize the Bush twins for using fake IDs to obtain alcohol and setting a poor example for their age peers. How dare we criticize Palin for a)constantly using her mentally disabled son as a prop to extol her "family values" while her record strongly indicates that she had turned her back on the mentally disabled children of other Alaskans; and b)seemingly being unaware of just how far her daughter had taken her relationship with her then-boyfriend while, again, extolling the family value of no sex before marriage. These people demonstrated their poor judgment by their actions, so we rightfully criticized them for failing to practice what they preach, but their defenders say we have no right to do so (because what? Because you are Republican, therefore beyond all reproach?). Who, then, gave them the right to make personal attacks on innocent members of my party and even children with no political affiliation for having the "misfortune" of looking the way they do by accident of birth (to Democratic parents--those immoral heathens) or the audacity to support an expansion of SCHIP because, I dunno, they are seriously ill and NEED health insurance to pay for their outrageously expensive medical treatments that their working/laid-off parents could not possibly afford? Why can't they just not get sick? If their parents KNEW they couldn't afford to pay for their children's medical treatments, why did they even HAVE children (they had to have anticipated that their children would get seriously ill before they were even born)?

Speaking of which, the cause of health care reform, which was the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's life's passion, has gained new momentum and meaning due to his recent death (may he rest in eternal peace). The cause is personal for so many millions of Americans, both conservative and liberal, and is the cause on which President Obama has essentially staked his reputation and success. Those who are eager to enforce the status quo are stoking the fears of those ill-informed reactionaries of the Republican Party, planting lies in their desperate-for-vindication-of-their-worldviews brains that socialism is an evil to be thwarted at all costs, that Obama's "death panels" (actually end-of-life counseling, which is essential) will "pull the plug on Grandma", that government-administered health insurance under Obama would cover illegal immigrants, and so on. All these arguments are absurd and untrue, and yet so many buy into them because they are so terrified of change that they will hold on to any embankment or rock in order to avoid being swept away by the steady flow of the stream of change. In those health care town halls that have captured the news media's attention these past few weeks, vocal groups (who have not read and will not read the actual proposal) opposed to health care reform have stifled debate, shouted down supporters and Democratic legislators, and even threatened their lives. From bringing dangerous assault rifles to "teabagger" rallies outside of town halls to hanging Democratic legislators in effigy, they have shown that there is no limit to the lengths they would go to prevent even the slightest change, even if it actually benefits them.

Do these foot soldiers of the opposition really know what it is they are really fighting for or against, as opposed to what they only believe is true? Are they so wedded to the culture of "Me", that even the thought of contributing a penny to cover the costs of another American's medical treatments makes them tremble with rage and indignation? Had they forgotten that over a trillion of tax money (including their own) was spent on deadly wars that they supported when Bush was president, and that far less money would be spent on health care reform, which would actually create and aid instead of destroy and plunder? What should be a passionate debate on a moral issue concerning all Americans is instead a ruthless, dangerous assault from one small but seething minority on the right that is fueled by fear, contempt, resentment, and racial prejudice. They have turned health care debate into a war, and they aren't afraid of using violence to silence those who want a reasoned discussion. In order to do what's morally right, and honor the memory of a faithful public servant, this discussion should get back on topic--the assurance of a brighter future for the American people.

I am so sick of many of the progressive activists in the Democratic Party, and I agree with most of their platforms. Public option, to them, has become (with some reluctance, because they actually want Single Payer) their Holy Grail. It "goes under the bus" or "dies" when the President fails to mention it at a town hall meeting, or when he expresses openness to another method. They go ballistic when he says "health insurance reform" instead of "health care reform", even though health insurance is in the most urgent need of reform if we're ever going to see actual progress in improving health care. They vehemently condemn the President and the Secretary of HHS when she says that Obama does not see the public option as essential to the bill. Anyone who says that public option is not everything and the only thing that matters, is a traitor in their eyes.

I know health care is a deeply personal issue which regularly stirs up strong emotions in anyone who has had a terrible experience dealing with callous, greedy insurance companies and the obscene costs of medical treatment, but does the debate really have to come to the point in which people from our side begin to behave disturbingly like those right-wing extremists in the Republican Party? We have all seen what could happen if people let their emotions overcome their reason.

To them, now, Obama is a sellout. He's pledged his allegiance to corporations and profits over the American people, and he should expect no support from the left flank of his own party in 2012 when he runs for re-election. He broke his promises, and he is not the "Change We Need", but "More of the Same". Why isn't he prosecuting Bush, Cheney, and all those who violated the Constitution to permit the torture of detainees? Why hasn't he already repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the "Defense of Marriage Act"? Why hasn't he already gotten us out of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Oh, and for that matter, why hasn't he single-handedly cured AIDS and cancer, eliminated poverty and infectious disease, ended nuclear proliferation, and stopped global warming? Aren't we expecting a little too much, too soon from one man to whom we've pinned so many of our greatest hopes? Hasn't he said that the real power to bring about change lies in the people, that they should hold his feet to the fire? Well, instead of moaning about the "death" of the public option, lashing out when it feels threatened, and writing about its woes, why don't they spend the time actually calling and emailing those politicians like they implore us to do, it seems, every single day?

I voted absentee today.

If only there were a ballot initiative to get rid of the electoral college for good.

I'm voting Republican because...

...cognitive dissonance is such a wonderful feeling, isn't it?
...my values are not the same as yours; in fact, they are superior.
...my responsibility is to my own interests only, and not my fellow Americans.
...the poor, sick, and disabled deserve neither my tax money nor my valuable attention.
...a guy whose middle name is "Hussein" has to be one of them evil Muslims who hate our freedom.
...waving flags, chanting "USA!", and singing patriotic songs demonstrates our superior patriotism.
...the war in Iraq must be won at any and all cost; to pull out now would be to surrender to the forces of evil!
...you're on your own, so shut up and quit expecting me to help you because it's not MY problem you are lazy and keep getting sick.

The Republican Party is a cult. Just like Scientology.

Obama/Biden '08/'12!

The moral depravity of the Republican Party is horrifying...how can so many Americans allow themselves to be fooled so many times that this country has become a laughingstock of the entire world? The string-pullers in the GOP are playing us for idiots, and it's worked because many of us REFUSE to think for ourselves or to think critically about our future.

We're better than this. McCain/Palin is Bush/Cheney III, plain and simple. They are different individuals, yes, and it's true that they may have bucked the Party line occasionally in the past. It doesn't make them, however, true "mavericks" like they claim. The evidence for the similarity between the two pairs is out there to be examined, and it's easy to find--if you're willing to look. The fact that Sarah Palin has more media exposure than Obama should have no bearing on whether she deserves your vote. The fact that she is a woman and that Obama did not choose Hillary Clinton as his running-mate should have no bearing on whether she deserves your vote. The election of the President of the United States is not American Idol--it's infinitely more than some superficial popularity contest, and it's exceedingly dangerous to treat what could be the most important election in our lifetimes as such.

For those who want to sit out: it's your choice, certainly, whether or not you want to vote. You may think that your one vote won't matter, but millions of people think this way. Millions of votes can make a world of difference in an election like the coming Presidential election, which is bound to be close (and shouldn't even be remotely close). The outcome of the election will affect you one way or another, and your vote is an investment into your future. Don't let the past discourage you.

Cynicism hurts everyone, though it's a natural fallout from 8 bleak years of Bush/Cheney. The U.S. can't afford any more cynicism from its voters--cynicism gets people elected who will perpetuate that cynicism through their heinous acts. It's a vicious cycle. It's defeatist. Our country and the world can no longer afford for anyone to be apathetic and self-defeating.

Why take the easy route and just refuse to vote? Why take the easy route and just believe everything you're told without a sliver of doubt? Why take the easy route and vote just for your own self-interest? Would you do something so willingly even if it would result in harm to yourself, your family, your friends, your neighbors, your community, and indeed everyone else on the planet?

Haven't people--shouldn't people come to your aid when you're down and can't get back up? Without each other, we can accomplish but little. Are we not our brothers' and sisters' keepers?

Heed Obama's message of hope and brother/sisterhood, and elect him the President. A strong nation is a nation unified.

The tale of US Open 2008...

So there they were, in this fabled tournament of champions: the heavenly (yet earthly) King against the talented Court Jester*, and the valiant (though depleted) Knight** against the brilliant (but yet-unproven) Tactician***.

The King humbled the Court Jester, and the Tactician outsmarted the Knight.

Finally, the King met the Tactician in an epic duel.

Except it wasn't epic. The King's grace and power were too much for the Tactician, who fell in three straight sets despite a brave fight.

So the King continues his reign for one more year--his fifth--on the courts of Flushing Meadows. It had been a grueling year for him, having lost epic, bloody duels with the tenacious Knight at the courts of Wimbledon and Roland Garros after having survived a crippling disease which left him weaker. There were--and still are--those who doubted the King's ability and wanted to see him fall in defeat. But as he has proven in his latest victory, he is healed and ready to lead the Kingdom of Tennis once again with the talent and genius only he possesses.

May King Roger reign forevermore, in tennis and in our hearts!

----

I had way too much fun with that. Wasn't Roger amazing? He's BAAAACK!

----

*Novak Djokovic, known as the Joker. "Court" jester seems appropriate, right?
**Rafa Nadal. "Knight" seems to fit him pretty well. Grounded, unpretentious, tough, and athletic.
***Andy Murray. Roger himself called Andy a tactician...who am I to doubt his words?

Okay, so...

Obama/Biden '08 wasn't exactly the "dream ticket" I (and no doubt many others) were hoping for back in primary season. It was Clinton/Obama '08, and it would have been a landslide.

It would have been the most historic major party ticket by lightyears, with the first serious female presidential candidate and the first serious black vice presidential candidate on the same Democratic ticket. People were so inspired by Hillary that many switched parties to vote for her or ignored their party affiliations to vote for her. People were so inspired by Obama that his speeches sent chills down their spines and made many cry. Imagine the sheer magnitude of the effect that ticket would have had on the American voters in November.

The reality now is that Hillary is NOT on the ticket, and a fair number of Hillary supporters are disillusioned or even angry. Women feel as if she had been shafted, and Palin's nomination is drawing some away. It's not that Biden is a poor VP choice; that's far from the truth. He appeals to the working-class whites and has more years of foreign policy experience than Palin has been in politics (correct me if I'm wrong).

We can't keep dreaming about what could have been and forgetting about the urgent fight happening now. The fact is, Obama/Biden is the necessary choice. Former Hillary supporters who say they are switching tickets are making a fatal mistake by choosing McCain/Palin solely on the basis of there being a woman on the ticket; these two, if elected, will enact policies which will shaft all women and bring further ruin to the U.S. economy and reputation. Making a rash decision based on raw, bitter emotional wounds will bring much larger, more devastating wounds in the long term, so it's essential that we give up the hurt and disappointment like Hillary and Bill implore us to do and fight for our common future.

Historical significance

So Senator Barack Obama has officially become the Democratic Party's nominee for the 2008 presidential election. There is so much historical significance in the dates of the convention and in the candidates (Hillary and Obama) themselves.

Obama:

• He will be the first black President in the history of the United States if he wins in November.
• His age and inexperience have been points of debate, but he will have a chance to reassure voters later today in his acceptance speech.
• The most recent polls have shown him and McCain in an incredibly tight race.
• He chose Biden no doubt to appeal to the voters who voted for Hillary, among whom many are blue-collar whites.
  

JFK:

• He was the first Catholic president.
• Voters were wary of his age and inexperience, but he reassured them in his acceptance speech.
• The Kennedy/Johnson ticket won by a hair.
• The choice of LBJ as VP was intended to appeal to southern whites as well.
  

----

Aug. 26, 1929: With the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, women won the right to vote in the U.S. In 2008, Hillary was close to becoming the first female presidential candidate of a major political party, putting those 18 million cracks in that glass ceiling.

Aug. 27: LBJ's 100th birthday. He fought for and helped pass legislation on such issues as civil rights, healthcare for all Americans, improved education, restraint in foreign policy, and environmental conservation. All of these issues are still relevant today. He also increased American involvement in what was to become an unpopular war (Vietnam); there's the highly unpopular Iraq War II today which most Americans want the next president to end.

Aug. 28, 1963: MLK Jr. gave his historic "I Have a Dream" speech on the National Mall. Obama will give his acceptance speech today, 45 years later; his nomination is seen by some as the culmination of the efforts of so many leaders of the Civil Rights movement, including King. Obama himself had worked as a community organizer in south Chicago, where many poor African-American families reside.

Aug. 29: 3rd anniversary of Hurricane Katrina's landfall in New Orleans. Many attribute the dearth of federal aid by the Bush Administration to the fact that the most greatly affected were low-income blacks.

----

Also, Abraham Lincoln's 200th birthday is in February of 2009, just a few weeks after the inauguration of the next president. If Obama wins, the significance of that will be incredible. Both are/were tall, lanky men from Illinois, hardened by difficult circumstances in childhood, and both are/were hardworking and intelligent. Lincoln helped free the slaves, and no doubt because of that, Obama is able to run for the nation's highest office today.

----

Bill's right. History is on Obama's side. What a year 2008 has been!

Whaddya mean the Olympics have just ended? What are we going to watch on TV from now on?

That aside, what an amazing two weeks and two days it's been. It's a bittersweet feeling knowing that the Olympics that China has spent decades campaigning for and seven years preparing for are finally over after 16 days. Awe-inspiring events like these always seem to end too soon, but it's just that fleeting quality which leaves strong impressions in people's memory.

It's London's turn now. Let's see them top Beijing 2008.